An appeal decision: The matter concerned a temporary parenting schedule for a 15-month-old child pending trial or agreement
An appeal decision in ONSC 6273, was issued on November 13, 2025. The matter concerned a temporary parenting schedule for a 15-month-old child pending trial or agreement. In April 2025, a motions judge had issued a temporary order granting the father “week about” equal parenting. The boy’s mother appealed.
The parties separated before the child’s birth. The mother’s position was that the child was too young to spend that much time away from her as his primary caregiver. Her home had been the child’s primary residence since birth. The mother operated a home-based business. The father had a “week about” schedule working in a detention centre. Both parents had children from another relationship.
The mother’s grounds of appeal were the motion judge’s failure to consider the child’s best interests, failure to consider the status quote, insufficient reasons in support of the parenting schedule, and the fact that the schedule ended breastfeeding.
On appeal, the court found that the motion judge considered some of the “best interests” factors set out in s.24 of the Children’s Law Reform Act (the “Act”) but it was an error in law to fail to consider all of the factors listed under s.24(3). While these factors may not all apply in a particular situation, and no one factor is to be given priority, the Court states that a judge must turn their mind to each of them.
In this case, the judge failed to consider the child’s age and need for stability, his stage of development, the history of care, and each parent’s willingness to communicate and cooperate with the other. The Court states that “maximum contact” “is not an unbridled objective” (at paragraph 26), and there is no presumption of equal parenting. There was also no “explanation of why the judge determined that this schedule is in the best interests of this child” (at paragraph 26). The reasons were thus insufficient.
With respect to the issue of the status quo, the Court notes that the new schedule was a significant shift from the status quo since the child’s birth, increasing his time with his father to equal parenting in a short time span. This failure relates to the need to consider the issue of stability.
Importantly, the motions judge also failed to consider the mother’s claims of domestic violence. The legislation mandates this as a factor to take into account under s.24(4) of the Act. This judge erred by “dismiss[ing] the claims outright, relying on the police investigation coming ‘to not’ and that no specific actions triggered an examination by the Court” (at paragraph 36). It is an error of law to fail “to consider the effect of the high conflict on equal parenting time” (at paragraph 38).
The Court also commented on the motions judge’s decision that the recommended guidelines from the Association of Family and Conciliation Courts (“AFCC-O”) were less applicable in this case. While the guidelines are confirmed to be non-binding, the Court confirms their helpfulness in considering what type of age-appropriate parenting can meet a child’s best interests (at paragraph 42).
The Court granted the mother’s appeal and ordered a 7-month parenting schedule that gradually expanded parenting to the father, but restricted overnights until the 4-month mark and then granted only 1 overnight to the father during his “off” week. He would not have weekend overnight access until month 8.
The father was ordered to pay $17,000 in costs and the costs order from the motion were set aside.
Tremblay-Chartier v. Blanchette does not forge new law: it maintains that the primary focus for parenting issues is the child’s best interests and the particular circumstances of the child affected by the litigation. However, it provides an excellent reminder for counsel about addressing all of the legislated factors that concern a best interests analysis, which should be helpful in providing advice to clients, negotiating parenting plans and drafting positions to submit to the Court.
Would you like to discuss further? Please contact us at: hello@dicksonappell.com or at (416) 927-0891